Searching the Resource Information Network

Our searching services are busy right now. Please try again later

  • Register
X
Forgot Password

If you have forgotten your password you can enter your email here and get a temporary password sent to your email.

X

Leaving Community

Are you sure you want to leave this community? Leaving the community will revoke any permissions you have been granted in this community.

No
Yes

Comparison of Franseen and fork-tip needles for EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy of solid mass lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Babu P Mohan | Mohammed Shakhatreh | Rajat Garg | Ravishankar Asokkumar | Mahendran Jayaraj | Suresh Ponnada | Udayakumar Navaneethan | Douglas G Adler
Endoscopic ultrasound | 2019

Franseen-tip and Fork-tip needles have been widely used in EUS guided fine-needle biopsy (FNB) of solid organs. There is conflicting data on the performance of these needles and unanswered questions on the ideal number of needle-passes and the requirement of an onsite cytopathologist (ROSE). We conducted a comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases and conference proceedings including PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases (from inception through July 2018) to identify studies that reported on the use of Forktip and Franseen-tip needles in EUS-FNB of solid organs. The primary outcome was to estimate and compare the pooled rates of diagnostic-yield. A subgroup analysis compared the outcomes based on the number of needle-passes and the availability of ROSE. A total of 23 study-arms were available for analysis. The pooled rate of diagnostic yield with Fork-tip needle was 92.8% (95% CI 85.3 - 96.6, I2 = 73.1) and the pooled rate of diagnostic yield with Franseen-tip needle was 92.7% (95% CI 86.4 - 96.2, I2 = 88.4).

Pubmed ID: 31249163

Research resources used in this publication

None found

Additional research tools detected in this publication

Antibodies used in this publication

None found

Associated grants

None

Publication data is provided by the National Library of Medicine ® and PubMed ®. Data is retrieved from PubMed ® on a weekly schedule. For terms and conditions see the National Library of Medicine Terms and Conditions.

This is a list of tools and resources that we have found mentioned in this publication.


EMBASE (tool)

RRID:SCR_001650

Comprehensive international bibliographic biomedical database that enables users to track and retrieve precise information on drugs and diseases from pre-clinical studies to searches on critical toxicological information. It contains bibliographic records with citations, abstracts and indexing derived from biomedical articles in peer reviewed journals, and is especially strong in its coverage of drug and pharmaceutical research. Embase can help with everything from clinical trials research to pharmacovigilance and is updated online daily and weekly. Its broad biomedical scope covers the following areas: * Drug therapy and research, including pharmaceutics, pharmacology and toxicology * Clinical and experimental (human) medicine * Basic biological science relevant to human medicine * Biotechnology and biomedical engineering, including medical devices * Health policy and management, including pharmacoeconomics * Public, occupational and environmental health, including pollution control * Veterinary science, dentistry, and nursing The Embase Application Programming Interface supports export, RSS feeds, and integration services, making it possible to share data with a wide range of systems.

View all literature mentions